|
|
Post by jonesy on Feb 29, 2012 15:04:25 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Feb 29, 2012 16:03:51 GMT 12
From the article: "I sort of intimated that maybe he wasn't very smart, because how could you be that buff and spend that much time in a gym and be smart as well?" That sort of intimates that you aren't very smart either sweetheart, if that is your level of (non) critical thinking and assumption. I literally facepalmed when I read that line. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 29, 2012 16:05:45 GMT 12
The presenters should be fired for such inane comments. Instead they'll probably be awarded New Idea and Woman's Day exclusive contracts to tell their side of the story...
|
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Feb 29, 2012 21:34:55 GMT 12
The presenters should be fired for such inane comments. Instead they'll probably be awarded New Idea and Woman's Day exclusive contracts to tell their side of the story... I get the impression one of them thinks 'smart' people are those who, you know, wear glasses and, like, read books and stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by strikemaster on Feb 29, 2012 23:07:39 GMT 12
I think the selection criteria for the SAS is a bit more stringent than for the media.
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Mar 1, 2012 13:02:27 GMT 12
She's getting roasted. Families of medal winning veterans have chipped in too, demanding her resignation over the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by strikemaster on Mar 1, 2012 16:26:44 GMT 12
Probably a bit much, most presenters are too thick to concern oneself over. Mind you, I don't get how people watch these kind of shows in the first place. Any show that has a social commentator isn't worth waking up to watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 1, 2012 17:12:47 GMT 12
The standard of magazine-style television journalism has taken a nose dive faster than any other form of the media in my opinion.
I had the displeasure of turning on the TV a week or so ago and that piece of trash they call "Entertainment Tonight" was on. The breaking headline was "shocking new images" of Macauley Culkin looking "gaunt and ill" and the kicker was the nasal bird asks her dumbarse audience. "And what did the cameras see in his hand that links him to Demi Moore's recent breakdown?" I was curious what it was so watched on.
They then show the photos where Culkin looked well, he had admittedly lost a bit of weight but certainly was not gaunt or ill - and the fact that they were comparing his now 30-something face to his 11 year old Home Alone photos, I mean what the hell are there people on. he grew up, thatnis what happened, nothing else. And then the big revelation which was built up more was in his hand was... dah-dah... a can of Red Bull. !!! I mean WTF? How is that news? The nasal thing then says that is "exactly the energy drink that Dim MEE Moore had been photographed drinking while on a drug fuelled binge blah blah blah"
If I was Culkin I would sue them and have them shut down. I mean, there was nothng wrong with the photos, he was fit and well, and having a drink. Not only that but he was also smiling for the camera, he was hiding nothing!
Oh and of course the nasal bird also through in the age old addage "he had a close relationship with Michael Jackson". That must prove he's a druggie I guess, since drugs killed whacko.
These sorts of shows should not pass the censor. They are crass, bad taste and malicious gossip. I'd love to see a reputable news show like 60 Minutes rip into the rpivate lives of the Entertainment Tonight team.
|
|
|
|
Post by errolmartyn on Mar 1, 2012 18:44:33 GMT 12
The standard of magazine-style television journalism has taken a nose dive faster than any other form of the media in my opinion. 'Nose dive', Dave? Surely you intended to say Plummet! Errol |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 1, 2012 20:21:38 GMT 12
Haha, oh yeah, sorry. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 1, 2012 20:27:46 GMT 12
The thing is back in the olden days I used to look forward to Entertainment This Week, as it used to have interviews with actors and directors about films that were currently being made, it really celebrated the film industry and it always looked behind the scenes. It also reviewed new films with reputable reviewer Leonard Maltern.
Then it became Entertainment Tonight and instead is now all bitchy gossip, innuendo, and totally made up nonsense. Rather than review films they now review people's clothing, behaviour at a party or something as totally irrellevant. It has longer sections in the 'coming up' previews about actual interesting stories than the stories themselves. The first half is the presenters asking the viewers questions, "Who was seen doing what, where?" just to fill in air time. And the female presenters are all painted orange and have something uptheir noses to make them talk funny. It's a joke and a waste of space. And they call themselves the world's leading enetertainment news programme. I'd hate to see the poor quality ones.
Sorry. I just had to rant.
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Mar 1, 2012 20:32:13 GMT 12
As Billy T would have it: Entertainment That's Weak
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 2, 2012 12:27:52 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by strikemaster on Mar 2, 2012 13:21:08 GMT 12
I wouldn't call 60 minutes reputable, Dave, they have their share of sensationalist crap. In Aussie its little more than a tabloid.
Ent That's weak was worth watching, never forget that Sly Stalone interview........
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Mar 3, 2012 10:23:53 GMT 12
Sambo!  |
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Mar 6, 2012 18:58:48 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by strikemaster on Mar 6, 2012 23:56:49 GMT 12
One down, dozens to go.....
|
|
